Details

    • Type: Question Question
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The Resolved Questions page [1] only mentions Public Domain in connection with Doug Lea's concurrent library.
      Public Domain is not specifically listed under any category.

      A concrete example is the code at [0] which says:
      <quote>
      Written by Brian Goetz and Tim Peierls with assistance from members of
      JCP JSR-166 Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
      </quote>

      The CC document [2] linked above includes the words "or Public Domain Certification".

      I think it would be helpful if [1] were updated to clarify whether the inclusion of [2] "Creative Commons Copyright-Only Dedication" means that all works "released to the public domain" are covered, or only works that follow the example above and reference [2].

      [0] http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/listings.html
      [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
      [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain

        Activity

        Hide
        Sebb added a comment -

        Thanks, I think that's clear now

        Show
        Sebb added a comment - Thanks, I think that's clear now
        Hide
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

        Done

        Any other improvements?

        Robert

        Show
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Done Any other improvements? Robert
        Hide
        Sebb added a comment -

        How about making it clearer by changing the introduction to:

        A work should be treated as being in the public domain when one of the following applies:

        Show
        Sebb added a comment - How about making it clearer by changing the introduction to: A work should be treated as being in the public domain when one of the following applies:
        Hide
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

        Sebb - Good catch 8-)

        There are four cases all ORs. Please see if the updated content is clearly. If not then an alternative approach would be to write out all cases fully (accepting the duplication) - or just jump in with a suggested improvement.

        Robert

        Show
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Sebb - Good catch 8-) There are four cases all ORs. Please see if the updated content is clearly. If not then an alternative approach would be to write out all cases fully (accepting the duplication) - or just jump in with a suggested improvement. Robert
        Hide
        Sebb added a comment -

        It's not 100% clear whether the list items under the heading

        "A work should be treated as being in the public domain when:"

        are alternatives (OR) or additional requirements (AND).

        As far as I can tell, the level-1 items need to be ANDed, but the level-2 items are ORs (indeed the second level-2 list makes this clear).

        Show
        Sebb added a comment - It's not 100% clear whether the list items under the heading "A work should be treated as being in the public domain when:" are alternatives (OR) or additional requirements (AND). As far as I can tell, the level-1 items need to be ANDed, but the level-2 items are ORs (indeed the second level-2 list makes this clear).
        Hide
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

        Added new section to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html along the lines suggested.

        Unsure about phrasing, and perhaps more details about attribution might be required. Please review, and dive in and fix any shortcomings.

        Show
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Added new section to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html along the lines suggested. Unsure about phrasing, and perhaps more details about attribution might be required. Please review, and dive in and fix any shortcomings.
        Hide
        Lawrence Rosen added a comment -

        +1 to Henri's response on 15 July, and +1 to Robert's response on 10 November. /Larry

        Show
        Lawrence Rosen added a comment - +1 to Henri's response on 15 July, and +1 to Robert's response on 10 November. /Larry
        Hide
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

        Any more opinions?

        Show
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Any more opinions?
        Hide
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

        In many jurisdictions, using public domain for any work which is not yet out of copyright is now problematic. For example see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/23830

        However, I agree with Henri and think the documentation should be updated along those lines.

        Robert

        Show
        Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - In many jurisdictions, using public domain for any work which is not yet out of copyright is now problematic. For example see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/23830 However, I agree with Henri and think the documentation should be updated along those lines. Robert
        Hide
        Henri Yandell added a comment -

        One of the issues I've seen on this is that 'public domain' is a fairly loosely thrown around term. Before saying that any public domain was fine, I don't know if we want to define that.

        How to handle public domain is another question. Real public domain we don't have to attribute etc, but for the sake of our own code history I think we would want to consider it as an extremely permissive license with attribution. i.e. your concrete example which spells out that it was put into the public domain and says who put it there.

        So... +1 for public domain, provided we have something to the effect of your [0] example as the instructions for how to deal with the code.

        Show
        Henri Yandell added a comment - One of the issues I've seen on this is that 'public domain' is a fairly loosely thrown around term. Before saying that any public domain was fine, I don't know if we want to define that. How to handle public domain is another question. Real public domain we don't have to attribute etc, but for the sake of our own code history I think we would want to consider it as an extremely permissive license with attribution. i.e. your concrete example which spells out that it was put into the public domain and says who put it there. So... +1 for public domain, provided we have something to the effect of your [0] example as the instructions for how to deal with the code.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Robert Burrell Donkin
            Reporter:
            Sebb
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development